"Bombcat" upgrades, yay or nay?

[Dudikoff]

So why not go play with a dedicated ground mover like the A10C or the Su25 and give the rest of us something to look forward to.

 

The rest of you? If theoretically more people want to have a multi-role capability added and the developer is keen on responding to that, what deciding factor are you here, exactly?

 

Besides, give some credit to the LN. I'm sure they'll work out priorities and a release system to satisfy the most.

[tobaschi]

the bombcat upgrade is a important feature / capability in my eyes and realy needed. Well perhapes it's not needed directly at the start, but perhapes in a later avionics upgrade "dlc".

 

The reason why i think so is, it deliver much more versatility in the simulation gameplay.

[Tirak]

So why not go play with a dedicated ground mover like the A10C or the Su25 and give the rest of us something to look forward to.

 

Because I want to fight my way into the target, hit it with PGMs, then fight my way back out like I would if I were playing Falcon BMS. A-10 and SU-25 can't do that, Tomcat, if it gets ground strike capability, can.

[panzerd18]

I want the F-14A model so we can simulate the Iran Iraq war and most of the F-14s operational life. I want the older model as its a better fit to simulate Cold War engagements.

 

We will have the F/A-18c to drop bombs with or even a potential intruder down the line who knows.

[Slipp]

Well, what you're asking for was not part of the Bombcat upgrade, but was added later on and available since around 1996 only IIRC with LANTIRN Targeting System (LTS) integration (modified LANTIRN targetting pod with added GPS navigation and weapon cueing).

 

I am not a F-14 expert, but IIRC the first F-14 to use LANTIRN was a B model, no?

 

As a customer, I am most looking forward to a naval strike fighter and if this specific product doesn't have what I'm looking for, I'll simply not buy it and wait for a product that will have what I'm looking for. :)

 

 

Currently DCS does not have a module that would bring a fast multi role that can fight it's way in, conduct a precision strike and fight it's way home. F-14B with LANTIRN would be the first such module and it would bring a feature that a lot of people have been asking for. Great opportunity for LNS, but it's their decision if they will implement it. But it is a customer's decision if they will buy the module.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Slipp

[Pikey]

Voted no, don't care for bombs.

 

Why ruin the best part of a fighter and make it the worst part of something else it was not designed for?

 

There's a reason the project was a stop gap and partially done.

 

I bet these same people put 6 mavs on their A-10.

[Tirak]

There's a reason the project was a stop gap and partially done.

 

Because budget cuts and a transition away from Cold War style defense spending :huh:

[Slipp]

Voted no, don't care for bombs.

 

Why ruin the best part of a fighter and make it the worst part of something else it was not designed for?

 

There's a reason the project was a stop gap and partially done.

 

I bet these same people put 6 mavs on their A-10.

 

6 mavs on A-10 might be unrealistic, but LGB's on F-14 are not.

[FlyingHighAU]

Voted no, don't care for bombs.

 

Why ruin the best part of a fighter and make it the worst part of something else it was not designed for?

 

There's a reason the project was a stop gap and partially done.

 

I bet these same people put 6 mavs on their A-10.

 

how is dropping a laser guided bomb ruining a fighter? It's simply expanding capability. War changes, and the tools evolve. Even the A-10 was designed originally for a different purpose than it is used for now. I doubt they even bother loading it up with combat mix rounds these days, i'd say it's all high explosive ammo in the cannon.

 

What would actually be cool is, if leatherneck released the F-14A first, polished it up, then released the A+/B later, and then after that even the LANTIRN pod version or bombcat version. So it the releases would somewhat imitate the history of the F-14 being upgraded throughout the years.

Edited March 4, 2015 by FlyingHighAU

[Dudikoff]

I am not a F-14 expert, but IIRC the first F-14 to use LANTIRN was a B model, no?

 

As a customer, I am most looking forward to a naval strike fighter and if this specific product doesn't have what I'm looking for, I'll simply not buy it and wait for a product that will have what I'm looking for. :)

 

My point was that the poll mentions the Bombcat upgrade specifically and that the LTS integration you want (to be able to self designate PGMs) was not part of that upgrade, but was available like 5 years later or so.

[Slipp]

My point was that the poll mentions the Bombcat upgrade specifically and that the LTS integration you want (to be able to self designate PGMs) was not part of that upgrade, but was available like 5 years later or so.

 

Copy, no hard feelings.

 

Perhaps this should be clarified then:

 

As you can see in the renders; the Phoenix rails have bombcat extensions modelled and ready to go.

We hope to include the Bombcat upgrade, but this will be subject to available research.

 

Are you hoping to include just the iron bombs upgrade or LANTIRN upgrade also?

 

Thanks. :)

[King_Hrothgar]

I voted for the last option and did so with the assumption the OP meant the LGB's. I don't think regular iron bombs would be an issue.

[Winfield_Gold]

As a customer, I am most looking forward to a naval strike fighter and if this specific product doesn't have what I'm looking for, I'll simply not buy it and wait for a product that will have what I'm looking for. :)

 

1 person not buying the module, 3000+ who are, not really a loss :megalol:

[Slipp]

1 person not buying the module, 3000+ who are, not really a loss :megalol:

 

Nobody said it was. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. :megalol:

[OnlyforDCS]

The rest of you? If theoretically more people want to have a multi-role capability added and the developer is keen on responding to that, what deciding factor are you here, exactly?

 

Besides, give some credit to the LN. I'm sure they'll work out priorities and a release system to satisfy the most.

 

What deciding factor? Im not one making requests here.

[Dudikoff]

This. I voted no. Really people, they announce a new plane and people are already all over them with new requests and additions they require. All of you guys demanding your "bombcat", you do realize that this stuff takes time to implement, and that it would add a significant delay to it's production???!!! So why not go play with a dedicated ground mover like the A10C or the Su25 and give the rest of us something to look forward to.

 

What deciding factor? Im not one making requests here.

 

Really? Sounds like you're deciding what the other people should ask for and what not.

 

Besides, a request to the devs on *not* to develop something is still a request and ultimately only LN can decide whether to develop it or not based on various factors some of which are presumably the wishes of the majority of their customer base.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Jumbik]

What I do not get is why would they develop A version when there will be the B version too. Why put work in a separate flight model when they can differenciate the versions a lot more than just with engine upgrades.

 

From a marketing point a B version with strike capabilities would be a lot better than a B version with only upgraded engines.

 

Then we get to the point where the A will be used only for campaign purposes as everybody else will use B in multiplayer.

[Dudikoff]

What I do not get is why would they develop A version when there will be the B version too. Why put work in a separate flight model when they can differenciate the versions a lot more than just with engine upgrades. Then we get to the point where the A will be used only for campaign purposes as everybody else will use B in multiplayer.

 

Maybe because the first (and in some ways perhaps the more significant) half of Tomcat's career was represented only by the A variant. So, if the MP scenario is set within an older timeframe, everybody would be flying the A variant if limited by the mission designer.

[Jumbik]

Maybe because the first (and in some ways perhaps the more significant) half of Tomcat's career was represented only by the A variant. So, if the MP scenario is set within an older timeframe, everybody would be flying the A variant if limited by the mission designer.

 

 

A proper multiplayer campaign will still be limited by enemy aircrafts and available maps. You cannot simulate it to the exact point in past as you will never have ideal background for it. So my question still stands.

[112th_Rossi]

They're making the my childhood fantasy aircraft. Nuff said for me.

[AceRevo]

A proper multiplayer campaign will still be limited by enemy aircrafts and available maps. You cannot simulate it to the exact point in past as you will never have ideal background for it. So my question still stands.

 

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

 

I bet youre one of those who are question why we have ww2 birds in dsc smh........... :doh:

[WinterH]

I, for one am glad they are doing both A and B. This is something I want to see more often in DCS, C-101EB and CC were kind of a start with this, but F-14A, A+ and B is more like what I was looking for. I do hope someone will do a DCS F-15A too someday.

 

DCS isn't limited to a timeframe, and variants of aircraft can greatly differ. More variants, merrier scenario possibilities and / or more stick time for sim pilots to discover / master individual versions.

 

Therefore, I am glad studios have started to put out multiple versions of airframes now.

[splash]

Here you have a customer, wheather you can implement it or not :-)

[NeilWillis]

What I do not get is why would they develop A version when there will be the B version too. Why put work in a separate flight model when they can differenciate the versions a lot more than just with engine upgrades.

 

From a marketing point a B version with strike capabilities would be a lot better than a B version with only upgraded engines.

 

Then we get to the point where the A will be used only for campaign purposes as everybody else will use B in multiplayer.

 

Your conclusions and argument are based on speculation only. Until Leatherneck come out and state whether or not the Bombcat is to be simulated, then I'd just wait and see.

 

I have a feeling they'll give us what we want.

[Dudikoff]

A proper multiplayer campaign will still be limited by enemy aircrafts and available maps. You cannot simulate it to the exact point in past as you will never have ideal background for it. So my question still stands.

 

If I understood properly, you're questioning why are they bothering with the A variant at all since the B is better and everybody will be using it and without the Bombcat upgrade, from your point of view, it would make even less sense and the differences between the A and B are insignificant enough to warrant a separate variant just to be able to have a more authentic experience in the older timeframe? Or you're trying to suggest to LN that B should have the Bombcat capability and sold as a separate module?

 

If the former, I think you're not appreciating the difference in handling that the upgraded engine brings that perhaps a lot of people would like to experience and master the limitations of the old one. And what would be your problem with that except that the final module would cost somewhat more? I doubt there will be more time to release since they'll probably start the beta as soon as possible and thus with one variant anyway.

 

If the latter, it's up to LN to decide if the differences (and the suggested A/G capability upgrade) would warrant a separate release. I for one wouldn't mind paying extra to develop the LTS integration, but that would fragment the B into separate subvariants and doesn't feel as a practical solution.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Dudikoff